Is there not an Ebola in Dallas thread yet?

[Trish]

He wouldn't be taken to jail until he was no longer contagious.  Many, many times patients are arrested at the hospital or upon discharge.  I've had patients who knew they were likely to be arrested upon discharge just walk out of the hospital while they were waiting to be discharged.   And when you see sheriff's deputies outside a room at a hospital, chances are very high that inside is not a friend, but a criminal.

 

 

I think it was irresponsible, but probably everyone will be fine.  UV light kills ebola.  Drying out kills ebola on most surfaces (glass seems to be one exception).  Some studies have shown it's dead within a few hours, but after a few days, outside, in the sun, it was probably dead.  If they mixed chlorine with the water, or even spraying with chlorinated city water, it should have killed the virus, according to that Richard Besser doctor on ABC.

 

Chlorinated city water kills ebola? That's a relief. Good old tap water!

 

I think we're good, then.

[gardenmom5]

Not always. Sometimes correct, sometimes exaggerated or misleading, sometimes wrong. 

 

the same thing can be said for many so called main stream.  re; NBC and their very selective and misleading audio edits.  (which came out in other sources reporting who played the entire audio.)

 

there is not one site that is completely trustworthy - so you simply must read various sites takes on things.

 

I can think of one local station here (don't remember which subsidiary it belongs too, though probably NBC) - there are certain "reporters" I don't bother reading anymore because it's an editorial - not journalism.  

 

 

eta: always asking "what aren't they saying?"

[gardenmom5]

 

I think it is impossible for protocol to be followed precisely under some conditions. 

 

mistakes happen.  when doing the same thing over and over and over and ov . . . it's very easy to pay a little less attention.  distractions come up.  it can only take a moment and they may not even realize anything was "different".  so, it's hard to say how they were exposed.

[Slartibartfast]

mistakes happen.  when doing the same thing over and over and over and ov . . . it's very easy to pay a little less attention.  distractions come up.  it can only take a moment and they may not even realize anything was "different".  so, it's hard to say how they were exposed.

I think so as well, when they don't have as many staff members or when those staff members fall ill that makes mistakes even more likely. People become exhausted and cannot possibly keep up for extended periods of time.

 

This particular outbreak has killed some of the leading experts in Ebola, I wouldn't say that they made a mistake but it isn't only their mistake that could lead to them being exposed. It doesn't have to be a doctor error that leads to their exposure, it could be a janitor or guy with a power washer, I know a power washer is less likely but I am just giving an example of how easy it would be for it to spread without a doctor even being aware of how they were exposed.

[Colleen]

But that *article* I linked to was not unreliable, nor did I in any way indicate that I only "take my news" from that source or any one source.  In fact, in this very thread I have posted links to multiple other sources of news.  Should I get prior approval from someone on which news sources I can link to?  Or can I only use her suggested list? 

 

All else aside, Laura was responding to another poster, so in that respect your indignation is misplaced.  It does each of us well to be familiar with our sources, as much as is reasonable.  That isn't to say any one media source is entirely reliable or neutral.  Of course not.  But those that are, in their home nations, considered "tabloids" or have an overt alliance are perhaps not the most useful reference.  Case in point:

 

Have you seen this?  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/03/alarming-claims-made-by-stepdaughter-of-dallas-ebola-patient-likely-wont-help-restore-confidence-in-cdcs-handling-of-case/

 

We should consider the source with a great grain of salt, as The Blaze is the brain child of Glenn Beck.  (I'd say the same were it the brain child of Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert, btw.)  You need only click on the above link to understand my point. Take a look at the graphics, the sensationalistic headlines.  Is that a remotely reasonable reference?  Rhetorical question, of course. 

[Katy]

Chlorinated city water kills ebola? That's a relief. Good old tap water!

 

I think we're good, then.

 

That's what Dr Besser said on some ABC show... maybe nightline a few days ago?  I didn't try to reference it on pubmed, but yes.  He said it takes very little chlorine to kill ebola, that even the amount in city water is enough.

[Laura Corin]

But that *article* I linked to was not unreliable, nor did I in any way indicate that I only "take my news" from that source or any one source.  In fact, in this very thread I have posted links to multiple other sources of news.  Should I get prior approval from someone on which news sources I can link to?  Or can I only use her suggested list?  I'm sure Laura intended to be helpful, but it came off as condescending.  Not a new theme for this thread.

 

I'm sorry you took it that way.  I would be very glad if someone helped me out with sources if I were reading (to me) overseas publications.  I think it's a shame that The Daily Mail is so well optimised for searching that it is often the first thing that pops up.

 

L

[Tenaj]

 

 

We should consider the source with a great grain of salt, as The Blaze is the brain child of Glenn Beck.  (I'd say the same were it the brain child of Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert, btw.)  You need only click on the above link to understand my point. Take a look at the graphics, the sensationalistic headlines.  Is that a remotely reasonable reference?  Rhetorical question, of course. 

 

Except that this particular story came exactly from an interview done by a reporter from CNN and even linked the actual interview.

[Katy]

Except that this particular story came exactly from an interview done by a reporter from CNN and even linked the actual interview.

 

Yeah. it's pretty much verbatim what was in Anderson Cooper's podcast two days ago.

[Word Nerd]

A Kansas City news station posted a vague news story last night about a patient with an unknown but possibly contagious illness being quarantined in a hospital there. They gave little real information and don't know many details, but they apparently still felt it was breaking news. They don't know what's going on or if it's significant, but they want to be first to report it if it turns out to be an actual story.

[Seasider]

That's what Dr Besser said on some ABC show... maybe nightline a few days ago? I didn't try to reference it on pubmed, but yes. He said it takes very little chlorine to kill ebola, that even the amount in city water is enough.

Anyone else suddenly think of the movie Signs?

 

(Of course I'm jk - kind of!)

[VeritasMama]

They cannot go help if there are no flights.

Private flights, military flights, etc. can still occur under a ban, just not commercial flights. Aid workers and soldiers can certainly still be transported where they are needed. The point is to control access, not totally eliminate it. Of course the UN, WHO, and other organizations would have to step up and coordinate and fund all of this. Who would be in charge, that is one problem. Likewise, bringing aid workers and others home in a controlled manner that wouldn't expose the general population is also doable, it simply takes coordination.

 

I don't know what the answer is, if travel should be restricted. But it isn't an either or, where everyone gets in or no one gets in.

[Guest]

All else aside, Laura was responding to another poster, so in that respect your indignation is misplaced.  It does each of us well to be familiar with our sources, as much as is reasonable.  That isn't to say any one media source is entirely reliable or neutral.  Of course not.  But those that are, in their home nations, considered "tabloids" or have an overt alliance are perhaps not the most useful reference.  Case in point:

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/03/alarming-claims-made-by-stepdaughter-of-dallas-ebola-patient-likely-wont-help-restore-confidence-in-cdcs-handling-of-case/

 

We should consider the source with a great grain of salt, as The Blaze is the brain child of Glenn Beck.  (I'd say the same were it the brain child of Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert, btw.)  You need only click on the above link to understand my point. Take a look at the graphics, the sensationalistic headlines.  Is that a remotely reasonable reference?  Rhetorical question, of course. 

 

Actually, you can hear her entire interview is on regular news sites.  That story I posted is not untrue.  

[Guest]

Except that this particular story came exactly from an interview done by a reporter from CNN and even linked the actual interview.

 

 

Yeah. it's pretty much verbatim what was in Anderson Cooper's podcast two days ago.

 

Yep.

[Guest]

Private flights, military flights, etc. can still occur under a ban, just not commercial flights. Aid workers and soldiers can certainly still be transported where they are needed. The point is to control access, not totally eliminate it. Of course the UN, WHO, and other organizations wod have to step up and coordinate and fund all of this. Who would be in charge, that is one problem. Likewise, bringing aid workers and others home in a controlled manner that wouldn't expose the general population is also doable, it simply takes coordination.

 

I don't know what the answer is, if travel should be restricted. But it isn't an either or, where everyone gets in or no one gets in.

 

Exactly.  I'm wondering if people who are arguing against a travel ban truly have not thought about this, or if they hope no one else can think beyond their argument.  ??

[Amira]

Exactly. I'm wondering if people who are arguing against a travel ban truly have not thought about this, or if they hope no one else can think beyond their argument. ??

I don't think many people are flying into these countries for fun right now so I don't think the flying in part matters much.

 

For the flying out part, there are ways to make a travel ban work relatively well, although it would be almost impossible to make it a true quarantine where no one could get out. There's still the question of authority though. I don't think anyone can impose a quarantine on Liberia. Not the US, not WHO, not the UN.

 

And that's still avoiding the fact that most people in these countries have never been exposed to Ebola and aren't a risk to anyone. I can't agree to restricting the travel of so many people for no reason.

[VeritasMama]

I don't think many people are flying into these countries for fun right now so I don't think the flying in part matters much.

 

For the flying out part, there are ways to make a travel ban work relatively well, although it would be almost impossible to make it a true quarantine where no one could get out. There's still the question of authority though. I don't think anyone can impose a quarantine on Liberia. Not the US, not WHO, not the UN.

 

And that's still avoiding the fact that most people in these countries have never been exposed to Ebola and aren't a risk to anyone. I can't agree to restricting the travel of so many people for no reason.

This is the issue, who would coordinate a ban? The WHO? I don't know if there is a way to do this.

 

I think it is much more realistic to try to quarantine the local areas where the outbreaks are occurring. But as others have mentioned, this would mean surrounding towns and villages with armed guards and barracades, and being willing to use deadly force. I am of the opinion that outbreaks should be quarantined, but I have no idea what the appropriate level of force is to enforce a quarantine. It's a problem with no easy answers, and I won't pretend to have them.

 

But people need to remember that even under a quarantine people can obtain medical clearance to leave, and certain people such as aid workers do come and go. The travel is highly monitored and controlled, but when only a small amount of people are coming and going this is doable. Again, the issue is who is going to coordinate it? I think the local governments certainly can't handle this, so who would be given the authority?

 

I don't think I saw anyone mention the fact that US troops are being sent to help the situation. While it is a humanitarian mission, I can't help but wonder if they will be called on to enforce local quarantines.

[hornblower]

Look, all I'm saying is that there should be a travel ban on Texas. I mean, just until this is over I don't see why we can't cxl all flights from there to Canada. / JK! JK! 😄

[creekland]

Look, all I'm saying is that there should be a travel ban on Texas. I mean, just until this is over I don't see why we can't cxl all flights from there to Canada. / JK! JK! 😄

 

As long as you only mean TX and not the whole US.  We're heading to Canada soon... and we've got money to spend, so I'm NOT expecting issues from customs even with my "went to Africa" this past July son.  He didn't go there via TX.  I think it's been 3 years since we were in TX... and then it was Houston, not Dallas.

 

Are we ok or do we take our $$ elsewhere???

 

ps  No dogs are traveling with us and we're looking for poutine, not BBQ.

[Susan in TX]

So now we have a possibly homeless man who might get ebola and no one knows where he is. At least he is one of the people that is considered "low-risk" for developing ebola.

 

 

 http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/police-county-sheriffs-deputies-looking-for-man-who-rode-in-ambulance-after-ebola-patient.html/

 

 

"Dallas County law enforcement officers are looking for a man who reportedly rode in the Dallas Fire-Rescue ambulance that had carried a man stricken with Ebola to Texas Health Presbyterian hospital.

County Judge Clay Jenkins said Dallas police and county sheriff’s deputies are trying to find the man, who reports have suggested is homeless."

 

 

[Carrie12345]

So now we have a possibly homeless man who might get ebola and no one knows where he is. At least he is one of the people that is considered "low-risk" for developing ebola.

 

 

 http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/police-county-sheriffs-deputies-looking-for-man-who-rode-in-ambulance-after-ebola-patient.html/

 

 

"Dallas County law enforcement officers are looking for a man who reportedly rode in the Dallas Fire-Rescue ambulance that had carried a man stricken with Ebola to Texas Health Presbyterian hospital.

County Judge Clay Jenkins said Dallas police and county sheriff’s deputies are trying to find the man, who reports have suggested is homeless."

 

But he's in 'MERCA! It's not like he could possibly living like people in 3rd world countries! Oh, wait.

[Laurie4b]

He wouldn't be taken to jail until he was no longer contagious.  Many, many times patients are arrested at the hospital or upon discharge.  I've had patients who knew they were likely to be arrested upon discharge just walk out of the hospital while they were waiting to be discharged.   And when you see sheriff's deputies outside a room at a hospital, chances are very high that inside is not a friend, but a criminal.

 

I  know that is normal procedure, but the article quoted the DA pondering the arrest as wondering about dealing with the infection in the jail, as if he planned to put him in jail as opposed to leave him in the hospital. I found it bizarre, which is why I posted it.

[gardenmom5]

then you'll need to add one for Newark NJ, and DC (howard university hospital).  both have potential ebola patients (results not yet announced). 

 

the guy in jersey came from Liberia (via Brussels) - and was vomiting on the plane. . . . a hazmat team removed him along with his 10 yo daughter.

 

Look, all I'm saying is that there should be a travel ban on Texas. I mean, just until this is over I don't see why we can't cxl all flights from there to Canada. / JK! JK! 😄

 

probably putting pressure on Brussels to stop flying people out of Liberia . . air france crews put their feet down several weeks ago they weren't flying there . . .

 

eta: okay - saw the update about the guy in jersey having something else.  good for the other 255 people on that plane.

[Lisbeth]

Suggesting we close our borders and refuse to let any flights from Africa into the U.S. constitutes going chicken little. I'm gonna go out on a limb and wager 90+% of the posters to this thread and the previous/locked one agree.

I disagree. It's common sense. I have heard every "false sense of security" argument there is when it comes to peanuts around my peanut allergy child. I am hearing similar ridiculous things coming from the CDC over this.

[Guest]

But he's in 'MERCA! It's not like he could possibly living like people in 3rd world countries! Oh, wait.

I think they found him and then he got away after they told him to stay put.  

 

Here's the link:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/dallas-ebola-case-officials-locate-low-risk-homeless-man-linked-to-ebola-case-1.2788183

[Slartibartfast]

Exactly. I'm wondering if people who are arguing against a travel ban truly have not thought about this, or if they hope no one else can think beyond their argument. ??

What is your solution then? If I cannot "think past my own argument," then how should those people get in and out of the areas? I did ask you that earlier in the thread but you did not respond.

 

Many flights are already canceled and it is causing aid workers to get stuck places.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/10/01/why-hasnt-the-u-s-closed-its-airports-to-travelers-from-ebola-ravaged-countries/

 

You keep saying rude things about people who disagree with travel bans but you haven't posted a solution.

[Muttichen]

I don't have time to read through twenty pages of responses, but what scares me is that our government, in the name of avoiding racism, etc., is not going to take common-sense measures that they need to take.  Of course we shouldn't deny access to anyone coming from Africa, but there are things we can do.  Kenya, for example, requires anyone who's been in one of the affected countries to have their temperature taken on arrival and then to check in every day for twenty-one days to get checked.  Why can't we do something like that?

 

It reminds me of the TSA patting down little old ladies while young men of Middle Eastern descent don't get a second look.  Of course most of these guys are innocent, but when avoiding profiling comes at the risk of endangering human life, sorry, but you have to profile.  If you meet such and such criteria, have an interview with the officer over there.  Honestly, if it were my race that had committed terrorist acts, I'd be happy to submit to such measures.  I want planes to be as safe as they can be.  I'd think that most people coming here from Liberia would feel the same way about Ebola.

[Guest]

What is your solution then? If I cannot "think past my own argument," then how should those people get in and out of the areas? I did ask you that earlier in the thread but you did not respond.

 

Many flights are already canceled and it is causing aid workers to get stuck places.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/10/01/why-hasnt-the-u-s-closed-its-airports-to-travelers-from-ebola-ravaged-countries/

 

You keep saying rude things about people who disagree with travel bans but you haven't posted a solution.

 

I actually didn't say you can't think past your own argument.  Reread.

 

If there was a travel ban in place, they could have specific flights for aid workers allowed.  

[idnib]

A large part of fighting disease is social. If people feel cut off, isolated, abandoned, etc or if their economy is impacted more than necessary, it can lead to unrest, making it more difficult to fight the disease on the ground. It also makes people more likely to hide and/or try to escape through alternate routes. It's easier to lose track of people that way. Overall, I think it's very possible that a strict ban could make us less safe in the long run in exchange for a feeling of temporary safety.

 

To those who are in favor of the travel ban, why do you think one has not been put in place already?

[Slartibartfast]

I actually didn't say you can't think past your own argument. Reread.

 

If there was a travel ban in place, they could have specific flights for aid workers allowed.

Ah you said people cannot think past my argument. That's still not polite.

 

What flights are those? Whose planes are they? Who is flying them? What size planes are you talking about?

 

The travel issues have become so cumbersome to aid workers that the US military is building an air bridge. Aid workers are getting stuck in neighboring countries.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/10/01/why-hasnt-the-u-s-closed-its-airports-to-travelers-from-ebola-ravaged-countries/"]

 

“If you try to shut down air travel and sea travel, you risk affecting to a huge extent the economy, people’s livelihoods and their ability to get around without stopping the virus from traveling,†said Gregory Hartl, a WHO spokesman. “You can’t ship goods in. Sometimes these goods are basic staples people need to survive — food and fuel.â€

[Carrie12345]

A large part of fighting disease is social. If people feel cut off, isolated, abandoned, etc or if their economy is impacted more than necessary, it can lead to unrest, making it more difficult to fight the disease on the ground. It also makes people more likely to hide and/or try to escape through alternate routes. It's easier to lose track of people that way. Overall, I think it's very possible that a strict ban could make us less safe in the long run in exchange for a feeling of temporary safety.

 

To those who are in favor of the travel ban, why do you think one has not been put in place already?

 

Even as a... let's say "concerned person" (since worry and doom and gloom seem to be the only labels being thrown at cautious people) I don't think it's time for a travel ban.  Right now, a national panic is more dangerous than the disease.

[Guest]

Ah you said people cannot think past my argument. That's still not polite.

 

What flights are those? Whose planes are they? Who is flying them? What size planes are you talking about?

 

The travel issues have become so cumbersome to aid workers that the US military is building an air bridge. Aid workers are getting stuck in neighboring countries.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/10/01/why-hasnt-the-u-s-closed-its-airports-to-travelers-from-ebola-ravaged-countries/"]

 

 

I didn't say that either.  

 

I actually don't feel like discussing the rest.  There are solutions if there is a travel ban.  You can google that info, too.  Otherwise, we can just agree to disagree.

[Halftime Hope]

Private flights, military flights, etc. can still occur under a ban, just not commercial flights. Aid workers and soldiers can certainly still be transported where they are needed. The point is to control access, not totally eliminate it. Of course the UN, WHO, and other organizations would have to step up and coordinate and fund all of this. Who would be in charge, that is one problem. Likewise, bringing aid workers and others home in a controlled manner that wouldn't expose the general population is also doable, it simply takes coordination.

 

I don't know what the answer is, if travel should be restricted. But it isn't an either or, where everyone gets in or no one gets in.

 

Thank you.  I'd like to know why you and I can figure that out and yet our political and health leaders, including the UN seem to think not.  For goodness sake, my dad flew humanitarian flights for years, and pilots around the world do so every day.   On a large scale, it's called an airlift.  (That we can do this is not news.)

 

[Pen]

I was responding to this. This is *exactly* what I quoted.

 

 

It is impossible for protocol to be followed precisely under some conditions. I don't think it is more easily spread than official statements/beliefs. It is impossible to make that assessment because doctors (despite being experts) are not in the best circumstances.

 

How is that not relevant?

 

People quote people and make additional points all the time but I was responding to you. I was disagreeing with you. I don't believe the virus is more easily spread than the experts believe. Do you have anything that suggests that this is the case other than doctors falling ill in third world countries? That is expected. Liberia's problems are exactly why those doctors fall ill, it isn't irrelevant.

 

Not only are the conditions less sanitary but they have less staff.

 

 

https://time.com/3453429/ebola-healthcare-workers-fatality-rate/

 

 

The points you are making now do seem relevant as a reply. 

 

There are different statements being made about the contagiousness of the virus by supposed "authorities" on the news that I have heard. They range from-- in my very likely imperfectly remembered versions and oversimplifications: statements along the lines of it is extremely difficult to contract and takes direct contact with blood or vomit, and then you would have to put your hand in your mouth to get the illness (heard on NPR a couple of days ago)...

to...

that possibly being within 3 (or even 6) feet without protection is enough for the spread via saliva droplets that go out from one person to another, and that it can be spread from surfaces (NY Times a few days or so ago).

 

Particularly the comments like the first mentioned above could easily leave people who had been in contact with the virus in a dangerous way thinking that they are safe, because they did not come in contact with blood, or vomit, or did not put their hand in their mouth. What I had read about Duncan made it seem like he or someone in his position could believe that--he had only been in the same air space in a taxi and had handled only the legs in helping to carry the person (do not know what is actual, but that is what I had read).

 

In reality, we do not know how contagious this ebola is.  Many protocols are based on experience going back to 1976. The 2014 strain has been reported (in the Journal Science) to have 300 genetic changes making it distinct. We apparently do know from the journal article and elsewhere that some of these changes make tests to determine if a person has the virus less dependable, thus affecting the identification and contact tracing protocols.

 

There is simply a lot that we do not know. 

 

 

"Ebola Virus Haemorrhagic Fever - Itg

www.itg.be/internet/ebola/ebola-62.htm

‎

 

CONTAGIOUSNESS OF EBOLA, MARBURG, AND LASSA VIRUSES. Although little is yet known concerning the contagiousness of Ebola, Marburg, and Lassa ..."

 

"the fact that these agents have not become epidemic or pandemic in the absence of zoonotic transmission means that they are not, in fact, highly contagious. Were any of them to spread by droplets as do the influenza viruses, for example, our world would surely and literally be a very difficult one in which to live today."

 

so, um, my thoughts, the only reason to base the idea that the virus is not spread by droplets and is not highly contagious is that it has not become epidemic in the absence of an animal vector, which animal vector may be the source for rural areas transmissions, but is less likely to be so as it has moved into cities...where actually, in Monrovia, etc., it does appear to be becoming epidemic ...

 

 "This is not to say that we can ignore the droplet route of transmission. Circumstantial evidences of such secondary infection are on record, but almost no experimental work has been done on this general problem." (bold and underline added)

 

--------------------------------------

 

 

Circumstantial evidence on record. No experimental work done.

 

Current protocol based on belief that or hope that ??? it ain't so??? 

 

You seem to choose to assume that doctors made a mistake. That is possible. It is also possible that the protocol is based on a mistaken understanding of the contagiousness, and a failure (or inability) to do experimental work that would test the circumstantial evidence that the CDC acknowledges the existence of. Or possible that the protocols are based on something that was true in 1976 and other prior outbreaks, but is no longer so due to some one or more of the known 300 genetic changes since then.

 

 

 

[Pen]

Thank you.  I'd like to know why you and I can figure that out and yet our political and health leaders, including the UN seem to think not.  For goodness sake, my dad flew humanitarian flights for years, and pilots around the world do so every day.   On a large scale, it's called an airlift.  (That we can do this is not news.)

 

 

 

There are also other solutions, that would not involve bans, but could involve different much higher levels of caution than is now the case. A much higher level of quarantining/health tracking/monitoring during incubation periods before and after travel for example. 21 days at either end. In our modern jet travel life style, I guess that sounds unwieldy. But people used to have to go through quarantines, Ellis Island and what not. You could be turned back for very little.

 

Much travel nowadays is based on "want" not "need." 

[Ausmumof3]

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-06/scientists-say-high-risk-ebola-could-reach-europe-by-end-of-mon/5791804

 

Predictions on spread to Europe.

[Slartibartfast]

I didn't say that either.  

 

I actually don't feel like discussing the rest.  There are solutions if there is a travel ban.  You can google that info, too.  Otherwise, we can just agree to disagree.

This is what you said,

 

I'm wondering if people who are arguing against a travel ban truly have not thought about this, or if they hope no one else can think beyond their argument. ??

Ok fine by me then stop talking about other posters and saying negative things if you don't want them to comment. You keep complaining about other people's posts. If you don't want responses from people who disagree stop talking negatively about them.

 

CDC and WHO both have spoken in opposition to travel bans.

 

I don't hope no one can think beyond my argument, I hope they can since travel restrictions make stopping the epidemic more difficult.

 

I posted an article in a previous post that stated that travel bans also make chartering private planes more difficult. The military can intercede but that is still our military with our citizens. The US military is already helping with trying to solve the travel problems, but how many soldiers are we going to commit to this?

 

What is the goal of the travel ban people are discussing? Is it to slow the spread of the illness? Is it to stop our citizens from being exposed or is it to keep people from stricken areas out of the US?

[Slartibartfast]

You seem to choose to assume that doctors made a mistake. That is possible. It is also possible that the protocol is based on a mistaken understanding of the contagiousness, and a failure (or inability) to do experimental work that would test the circumstantial evidence that the CDC acknowledges the existence of. Or possible that the protocols are based on something that was true in 1976 and other prior outbreaks, but is no longer so due to some one or more of the known 300 genetic changes since then.

I don't think the doctors did make a mistake, I think with so many people involved and so many of them being exhausted it could have been any number of issues. It could have been a million different things, I have read the same crazy virus killing everyone books that everyone else has and it does cause one to think about all the different ways it would be possible.

 

The animals-eating-vomit thing is pretty crazy but well, that could happen. In the worst of scenarios I wouldn't imagine someone just leaving Ebola-laden vomit laying around. If it got in the US rodent population that would be big problem IMO.

 

I know Doctors without Borders is probably looking at the issue. My dh's uncle works with Doctors without Borders and I know they are an amazing organization.

 

Thanks for the links, I will read them. :)

[Guest]

There are also other solutions, that would not involve bans, but could involve different much higher levels of caution than is now the case. A much higher level of quarantining/health tracking/monitoring during incubation periods before and after travel for example. 21 days at either end. In our modern jet travel life style, I guess that sounds unwieldy. But people used to have to go through quarantines, Ellis Island and what not. You could be turned back for very little.

 

Much travel nowadays is based on "want" not "need." 

 

Great points.

[Halftime Hope]

What is the goal of the travel ban people are discussing? Is it to slow the spread of the illness? Is it to stop our citizens from being exposed or is it to keep people from stricken areas out of the US?

 

All of the above are worthwhile goals AT THIS TIME. 

 

Ebola is an indiscriminate killer:  anywhere it goes, it will cause illness and death.  We have Zmapp to thank for the recoveries of the two medical personnel that were taken to Emory, but everyone else who gets ebola may not be as fortunate.

 

While I *am* concerned about US citizens because it is here today, I'm far, far more concerned about it spreading to other third world countries that lack infrastructure.  I grew up in one of those countries, and I am certain it could not be contained there.

 

The third is a worthwhile goal [ETA: to keep people from stricken areas in their own country for the purpose of limiting the spread, not just keep them out of the US, rather out of all other countries] until ebola has faded back the pit it came from, and then there would be no need. 

 

It feels like you are hinting that some of us are using ebola as a pretext to limit visits or immigration from West Africa; speaking for myself, I assure you nothing could be further from the truth. 

 

[Slartibartfast]

All of the above are worthwhile goals AT THIS TIME. 

 

Ebola is an indiscriminate killer:  anywhere it goes, it will cause illness and death.  We have Zmapp to thank for the recoveries of the two medical personnel that were taken to Emory, but everyone else who gets it may not be as fortunate.

 

While I *am* concerned about US citizens because it is here today, I'm far, far more concerned about it spreading to other third world countries that lack infrastructure.  I grew up in one of those countries, and I am certain it could not be contained there.

 

The third is a worthwhile goal until ebola has faded back the pit it came from, and then there would be no need. 

 

It feels like you are hinting that some of us are using ebola as a pretext to limit visits or immigration from West Africa; speaking for myself, I assure you nothing could be further from the truth.

I wasn't trying to hint, sorry if it sounded like that. My brother-in-law is in the military as are many of my friends (though brother-in-law is already deployed and so is not going to be heading to Africa). I am more worried about soldiers than I am tourists.

[Guest]

They found the homeless man:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ebola-outbreak-homeless-man-exposed-in-dallas-sought/

[Slartibartfast]

They found the homeless man:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ebola-outbreak-homeless-man-exposed-in-dallas-sought/

That's good!

[Halftime Hope]

I wasn't trying to hint, sorry if it sounded like that. My brother-in-law is in the military as are many of my friends (though brother-in-law is already deployed and so is not going to be heading to Africa). I am more worried about soldiers than I am tourists.

 

I understand.  My only sibling is military as well.  Even if he is not deployed, many under his care will be and the stress of caring for their families could have devastating effects on his health without his ever setting foot overseas.  (Bad situation any way you cut it.) 

 

You have my fullest empathy.

[Paige]

We have Zmapp to thank for the recoveries of the two medical personnel that were taken to Emory, but everyone else who gets it may not be as fortunate.

 

 

 

 

The sample size is too small to know if Zmapp was a significant factor in their recovery or not. I hope it was, but it's too soon to tell. From what I could find it was given to 5 people, and 2 of those died. It's not much different than the 60% survival rate of this strain without zmapp. The two Americans who survived were also given a different experimental treatment (plasma of survivors) so that further confuses the issue. 

[Pen]

 

...

"Ebola Virus Haemorrhagic Fever - Itg

www.itg.be/internet/ebola/ebola-62.htm

‎

 

CONTAGIOUSNESS OF EBOLA, MARBURG, AND LASSA VIRUSES. Although little is yet known concerning the contagiousness of Ebola, Marburg, and Lassa ..."

 

"the fact that these agents have not become epidemic ...  means that they are not, in fact, highly contagious.."

 

'''

 

 

I was going to ETA:

 

The above is itself a circumstantial argument, and a circular one.

 

One of the few actual studies done (in Gula in a 2000 outbreak, so not the current strain), while it had very small sample size and thus has to be taken with caution as to conclusions, had showed that 8 of 16 saliva samples tested positive, whereas 0 of 2 vomit samples tested positive for ebola. Thus in those small sample sizes 50% positive rate in the saliva, and 0% in the vomit.

 

I would not want to count on the 0% for the vomit and conclude that the vomit of infected persons is safe. But I also would not want to discount transmission via saliva. There were also only 2 breast milk samples, btw, both tested positive. This apparently correlated to the actual deaths of the babies who were breast fed from mothers who had ebola in the studied group. This made it appear that the test results and real life had at least some relationship.

[Halftime Hope]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ebola-patient-thomas-duncan-may-have-spread-virus-nih-expert-says/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20primary_source%20(CBS%20News%20-%20Primary%20Source)

 

It doesn't help for right now, but good news that they expect an ebola vaccine to be ready for second stage trials, to be done in West Africa if stage 1 goes well, in two months.

[Guest]

Am I reading this correctly?  The daughter of the patient's girlfriend was cleared?  Wasn't she with him while he was sick?  I thought she originally said she did have contact with him.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/as-ebola-patient-in-texas-fights-for-his-life-his-family-copes-with-stigma-and-isolation/2014/10/05/d3c8b2ac-4cc7-11e4-8c24-487e92bc997b_story.html

[maize]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ebola-patient-thomas-duncan-may-have-spread-virus-nih-expert-says/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20primary_source%20(CBS%20News%20-%20Primary%20Source)

 

It doesn't help for right now, but good news that they expect an ebola vaccine to be ready for second stage trials, to be done in West Africa if stage 1 goes well, in two months.

That is excellent news! I really hope the trials go well.

[Colleen]

That story I posted is not untrue.  

 

I didn't say it was untrue.  I'm encouraging you to consider the reliability of sources, particularly when using those sources at reference points.  I don't see great value in passing along links to sites that are presented in an almost comical, National Enquirer fashion.  If in fact the info you share is valid and available elsewhere, it makes good sense to provide the more respectable, less tabloid-esque source.

 

You know a thread has jumped the shark when you (the general you) are speculating on whether or not a wandering dog MIGHT have possibly come by and licked up vomit from an ebola patient.

 

Yabbut…doesn't it stand to reason that if we talk of chili and Texas-Okie wars and football, canine attraction to vomit is fair game, too? ;-D

 

Am I reading this correctly?  The daughter of the patient's girlfriend was cleared?  Wasn't she with him while he was sick?  I thought she originally said she did have contact with him.

 

So many things about this situation are just…concerning, at best.  I'm not following the story closely because the "news" is in a constant state of flux, not reliable or genuinely informative.  I have many questions, most of which are unanswered and likely to remain so.  Frustrating!